Jump to content

User talk:Lar/Archive 60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60

I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.


This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 November 2009 through about 1 December 2009. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others.

An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex.

Talk Page Archives
My post 2012 archived talk
Archive 79 1 December 2012 through 1 December 2013
Archive 80 1 December 2013 through 1 December 2016
Archive 81 1 December 2016 through 1 December 2018
Archive 82 1 December 2018 through 1 January 2021
Archive 83 1 January 2021 through 1 January 2023
Archive 84 1 January 2023 through 1 January 2025 ??
RfA Thank Yous
RFA Archive Howcheng (27 Dec 2005) through present
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date


User:Lar/Accountability question

[edit]

Refactored to User_talk:Lar/Accountability#Notification_of_others by mutual agreement. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A response and questions

[edit]

You directed some heated comments at me in reaction to some things I said. I think you misunderstood me. I've replied just now at two spots that you can see in this diff. [1] I also have a slightly longer response on my talk page. Why don't you look over what we both said, and perhaps you won't be as offended. If there was something else I said in that DRV or AfD that really offended you, I'm willing to discuss it with you calmly on my talk page or yours or at the DRV page or that talk page.

I'd also like to know if you asked Versageek to investigate me and whether you suggested he block me. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noroton: I have reviewed the discussion threads as you requested. I would not characterize my view as "offended", merely concerned that you were repeatedly making inappropriate comments. I stand by my assessment of your commentary in that discussion as unhelpful in a number of ways, including being unnecessarily belligerent, threatening, and even disruptive.
As for the check that was run, my review of your contributions, especially the recent ones, suggested a user who was using an alternate account purely to participate in contenious discussions, and do so aggressively and disruptively, which is a violation of the spirit of WP:SOCK (and has always been), and after the early October edits, of the letter as well. Given the amount of interaction with this sock account I'd had, I felt it best to request an uninvolved CU run the check, which I did, and they confirmed my suspicions (although I confess I was surprised it was you, I thought you knew better). Versageek knows policy well and drew their own conclusions without prompting from me. Your attacks on them (in the unblock request at User_talk:Noroton, for example, and then at AN/I) are completely without merit and reflect badly on you.
For my information, Which of the 7(??) account(s) you were disruptively using have now been unblocked? Do you plan to continue using more than one? Are they all appropriately crosslinked? ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't decided. I thought the blocks were indefinite on all but Noroton, which would last a week. I'd originally said I'd drop them all, but the idea of continuing with them, simply identified publicly, didn't occur to me and I need to think about it for a day or two. It might be less confusing for others if I simply kept the Reconsideration and CountryDoctor accounts, especially with the various User pages and links. I certainly wouldn't edit with them without sticking an alternate-account notice on them. I have no intention of keeping the Noroton one. My main priority right now is understanding how this block came to be.
When you looked into it and then handed the investigation over to Versageek, did you say something to Versageek about my comments on the AfD or DVR page? Do you know if other checkusers were involved in this? If so, who? I'd like to understand who was involved and how.
You say after the early October edits, of the letter as well. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand this. I take it you're referring to when the wording at WP:SOCK changed to make it explicit that only the main account should edit deletion debates (Oct. 3). Before that, the wording seemed to say that two different accounts shouldn't edit the same deletion debate. I take it it wasn't Noroton resigning that made a difference (Oct. 5), so you're hanging this on the wording change four weeks back and the "spirit" of the policy. Correct?
This is what I don't get: Only Versageek and you think I was editing disruptively on the DRV. I still don't understand how. Could you explain how my actual edits were disruptive? With respect, I don't believe they were any more "disruptive" than yours on that page -- and I don't think either of us were disruptive. We could put your comments side by side with mine and I don't think you'd find one was any closer to disruption than the other.
Criticizing the editor who blocked me is different from attacking the editor who blocked me. To say an action is wrong is not an attack. Please point out where I attacked rather than criticized Versageek. It's not that long an unblock statement, and the distinction is pretty obvious. If I see I've attacked someone, I'll immediately go apologize -- OK? It's not like I don't change my mind when new facts come in or admit when I'm wrong, is it?
There's a similar distinction between sharp criticism and even argumentation on the one hand and incivility and disruptiveness on the other. DRVs are all about criticizing actions of the closing admin (in almost every case). Jake's conduct looked so egregious that many, many participating editors have called it "bad faith". I specifically amended my position to say it looked indistinguishable to me from acts that would be committed in bad faith, but I don't know his motivation, and his motivation is, ultimately, irrelevant to the DRV.
Which of the 7(??) account(s) you were disruptively using [...] Now, see, that kind of statement sounds a bit "offended", more than merely concerned because you must be experienced with sock accounts and must know the distinction between accounts that simply edited the encyclopedia constructively and the kind of nefarious socking that harms the encyclopedia. And yet you conflate the two. It seems like an emotional reaction. Doesn't it bother you that the only "disruptive editing" that you've specified to any degree deals with a difference of opinion I have with you over the deletion of that article? If you've got reason to say I was "disruptively using" those other accounts, you should be able to specify how. But you can't. Because I didn't. Because I was acting in good faith and no actual disruption took place.
One other question: Do you still think I was threatening you? I really didn't mean to, and I hope you'll see that.
-- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We as a community do not support socking in order to hide who you are when participating in internal debates. Socking is intended only to allow you to work on difficult topic areas, ones that might be problematic if it was discovered that your real person was editing in those areas. And even then the edits need to not be contentious. It's not intended to allow you to hide, to goodhand/badhand. I don't use undisclosed socks, and I've had my real name tied to my online identity since forever (over 25 years now and counting), so I always stand behind everything I say. I'm not sure there's much more useful I can add at this point, other than to restate what I already said, that I feel your contributions were unhelpful in that they went well beyond strongly worded views. And I'm disappointed in that, as I had some regard for you based on your participation here and at WR prior to this. I would have given your words much more leeway (and credence) if they were said by Noroton than if they were said by a sock with undisclosed connections. But if you choose to sock all bets are off. I do not support the broad interpretation of WP:CLEANSTART that you're reading into it. ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, here's a link to a history page from Oct. 28 [2] when the block took place because WP:SOCK language continues to change daily. Either it does or does not -- or rather, did or did not -- mean what it says said it means (boldface added):
*Clean start under a new name: If you decide to make a fresh start, and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit. That is, you should not turn up on a page User:A used to edit to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B, while denying any connection to User:A, particularly if the edits are contentious.

Discontinuing the old account means that it will not be used again. When an account is discontinued, it should note on its user page that it is inactive—for example, with the {{retired}} tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet.

It does not require an interpretation to understand that ending Noroton and using JohnWBarber allows me to edit nondisruptively in a DRV discussion. It proscribes "active deception", which I followed; it does not insist that I disclose anything. That section is supposed to let you edit under another account name unconnected to the old one. You used your CU powers to investigate me, encouraged another checkuser to violate WP:CLEANSTART and did so while you were in a conflict with me that clearly got under your skin. You haven't shown that I was disruptive in any way. There was not even a conflict with David Shankbone that you can hang your hat on, since my comments had nothing to do directly with Shankbone but with upholding WP deletion standards and what I view as the misuse of closing admin powers. You don't get to hold me to a higher standard because you used your CU powers to find out that someone you were angry at -- and involved in a conflict with -- had exercised his rights and upheld his responsibilities under WP:CLEANSTART. Everyone knows that when an admin is angry and involved his judgment can be impaired and it should not be driving any admin action. By checkusering me and sending the results to Versageek, how did you influence his judgment?
We as a community do not support socking in order to hide who you are when participating in internal debates. That statement is simply false if you're talking about the Noroton account (since socking must be simultaneous) and it simply did not apply to the state of WP:SOCK policy when I started the accounts. If you're talking about the Reconsideration and CountryDoctor accounts in connection with the JohnWBarber account, then it's only true in a technical, wikilawyering sense, since the violation could not possibly have blocked insight into my history (those other accounts basically only edited content in obscure corners of the wiki), and the interleaving of Reconsideration and JohnWBarber participation in (different) AfDs was a classic de minimus, trivial violation -- as is using JWB for AfDs when Reconsideration became my main account. It's simply obvious that I meant no harm and committed no harm, and it's over the top to believe I had any nefarious intent. You're a checkuser and an admin and others should be able to expect of you that you understand the difference between editors trying to follow policy and actually editing constructively and editors trying to cause or actually causing harm. That really is a serious problem, something far more serious to the encyclopedia than anything I did.
You did separate yourself from the actual blocking of me, but since your communication with Versageek was private, I don't know how much. Please post the entire communication (minus only information, if it is in there, that might disclose CU methods that shouldn't be public), and then I'll be able to see just how much you separated yourself from that block and just what to think of your actions vs. that of Versageek.
I've been asking you questions about your official actions and why you took them and about how you read policy. These are legitimate questions, and I've tried to be courteous as well as civil in asking them. I've also asked you questions and explained myself to try to resolve this anger that you deny but which, it seems to me, you're still showing. Please be responsive and open. I had some regard for you based on your participation here and at WR prior to this. The feeling's mutual, but it's certainly been dissipated. Why don't you ask someone you trust, in private, to look over my comments at the DRV, Wartenberg's talk page and the AfD and see what that person says about how "disruptive" I was in a contentious discussion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is your main account? Even now you seem to be saying it's not JohnWBarber. (above: "when Reconsideration became my main account") Further, JohnWBarber appears not to be an account that was started after Noroton was retired (if Noroton even was, you seem to still be editing with it from time to time). So I'm not sure it is really a CLEANSTART to jump over to JohnWBarber now. Cleanstart means starting with no reputation at all, not one that goes back to Nov 2008. My advice to you is if you really want a clean start, abandon all of these accounts and start over, completely, with zero reputation. Your current actions don't fit that.

In response to your questions about my actions, I did not use my CU powers to investigate your JohnWBarber sock, or any of your other IDs, unless you count reviewing your contributions by following Special:Contributions as "using CU powers", which I do not. I do not feel I, or Versageek, violated any policies, in letter or in spirit. Please feel free to keep asking questsions but if you have a concern that you feel I have not answered, you can refer it to the WP:AUSC. ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you didn't use checkuser powers on this, because it was a big concern of mine. Thank you for telling me that.
These are the questions you've left unanswered, plus some others. If you feel that AUSC is the appropriate place for me to ask them, you can direct me there for that, but they all seem to fall outside AUSC's purview (quotes in italics):
  1. You did separate yourself from the actual blocking of me, but since your communication with Versageek was private, I don't know how much. Please post the entire communication (minus only information, if it is in there, that might disclose CU methods that shouldn't be public), and then I'll be able to see just how much you separated yourself from that block and just what to think of your actions vs. that of Versageek.
  2. What specificlly did I say that you think was worth a block under WP:SOCK? Or under any other policy? You said above that you're concerned that you were repeatedly making inappropriate comments. I stand by my assessment of your commentary in that discussion as unhelpful in a number of ways, including being unnecessarily belligerent, threatening, and even disruptive. Quotes, diffs or simply your memory of specific comments, please.
  3. If you post the message, then never mind this question: When you looked into it and then handed the investigation over to Versageek, did you say something to Versageek about my comments on the AfD or DVR page?
  4. suggested a user who was using an alternate account purely to participate in contenious discussions, and do so aggressively and disruptively No, you'll find a large majority of my contributions under JohnWBarber were not contentious: They were either content edits or rather routine AfD !votes. And what do you call "contentious"? Simply participating in an AfD? Is this [3] or this [4] "contentious"?
  5. Participating in "contentious" discussions is not a violation of SOCK unless those discussions are on a page edited before by another account (see "Misusing a clean start" here [5]). And don't give me an "it's-in-the-spirit" argument on that -- AfDs are new subjects and other parts of WP:SOCK deal with them specifically, along with other project discussions. Disruptive editing is a legitimate objection, if it happened, not participating in "contentious" discussions on new pages. Your point really relates to "Good hand/bad hand" accounts in which "disruption" is the problem (see the last link for the passage on that). In order for the alleged belligerence, aggressiveness, contentiousness of my comments to violate WP:SOCK, they had to rise to the level of disruption. (A) Do you agree? (B) And any violation would have also necessarily violated WP:DISRUPT, do you agree?
  6. Do you still think I was threatening you? If so, how? (You might want to reread your own comments in that part of the DRV thread before answering.)
  7. If you've got reason to say I was "disruptively using" those other accounts, you should be able to specify how.
  8. To say an action is wrong is not an attack. Please point out where I attacked rather than criticized Versageek.
  9. You say "after the early October edits, of the letter as well." [...] so you're hanging this on the wording change four weeks back and the "spirit" of the policy. Correct?
10 - 12. I'll listen to your advice to me about alternate accounts and new accounts when we're done discussing our differences and I know it isn't an argument point. Reconsideration was the account with the most edits, so WP:SOCK says (somewhere -- at this rate, perhaps somewhere in the past) that technically Reconsideration was the main account. You're the CU, you look it up. I stated what my "main" account (only account) now is at least twice on the talk page of JohnWBarber in my unblock discussion. Your harping on minor technical violations done in good faith and already apologized for on more than one page is not exactly getting the point -- unless those were specifically what you pointed out to Versageek. (10) Or is it something other than a minor, technical violation that JohnWBarber overlapped with Noroton for a year? If so, why? Were you paying attention when I said -- on multiple pages -- that when I started the accounts they were not prohibited and that I was unaware that the policy had changed as drastically as it did, particularly in the last month? (11) If I thought JohnWBarber and the rest were allowed anyway, why start yet another account? What's the point? I wasn't looking closely at WP:SOCK (I've admitted that was a mistake) because, not meaning to do any wrong, I didn't think I was in danger of being blocked without warning. Why would you think I would remember, or should be blocked for, such a minor detail as whether to do CLEANSTART with a new vs. an overlapping account? (12) What "reputation" for JohnWBarber before Oct. 5 would matter to anyone? None of those are rhetorical questions (other than the "Were you paying attention ..." one, which is unnumbered).
You say, I do not feel I, or Versageek, violated any policies, in letter or in spirit. If I wasn't disruptive, you did. Please post your message to Versageek and show me there wasn't anything wrong there. I think that and your telling me exactly what you found disruptive -- and please tie it to specific comments -- would cover most of my concerns. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I answer you I get a longer reply than last time. I'm not seeing this as a good use of my time. I'll seek input from other uninvolved folk. But you should listen to my advice now, because it's good advice. If you really want a clean start, abandon this account too, it's tainted. (presumably once this matter is resolved) ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to throw this in the AUSC's lap and have made a formal request for review. ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It got longer because I repeated the questions you didn't answer. (Your previous post invited me to ask them.) JohnWBarber (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I count the same question asked 2 or 3 or 4 different ways, more than once. One theme: "Disruption" is a judgment call. In my view, your participation in the AfD, the DRV, and the policy discussion was belligerent enough to be disruptive. It certainly is possible that other folk, in good faith, have other views. But if my view was reasonable, then the sock investigation was merited. Another theme: In my view you're rules lawyering about the sock policy. You've maintained a number of accounts, they overlap and intertwine, and you participated in policy discussions in a way that was, in my view (after learning about the accounts), deceptive. You can quibble about wording as much as you like but that's my view. I don't sock and my real identity has been out there all along. A third theme: I've given this to AUSC so I'm not going to be sharing private conversations with you on your say so. Really, that addresses all of the questions as far as I can see. ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I simply do not see a role for the audit subcommittee with respect to Lar, since he did not run any checks, only suggested it to someone else. The use of checkuser and oversight (like any other restricted privilege including rollback, deletion, and blocking) is subject to the discretion and judgement of the individual using the tool. Thatcher 15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Lar -- But it doesn't answer them, and answering them would actually move this from the realm of vague personal opinion difficult to assess to an area where the specifics would reveal how wrong you've been. Once you state specifically what was disruptive in my statements, I'll show you statements you and others made that are closer to being disruptive. None of these statements will actually come close to what people are blocked for for violating WP:DISRUPT. And that will be plain as day. You've accused me of being disruptive. That's a serious, blockable charge, and, in fact, I was blocked for it, had my clean start taken away and as a direct, predictable result, was treated viciously in comments at the DRV and at ANI. Having started all this, you owe me an answer to a simple, striaightforward question that I have asked multiple times: If you say I was disruptive, what specific disruptive statements or actions are you referring to. This thread shows you are evading or refusing to answer this question. I wanted to give you the opportunity of answering it and resolving our differences here. You've proposed a forum which is normally private. But this deserves a public response, so if it's going to go to another forum, I'll take it directly to ArbCom and let them decide whether or not to open a case. I think I've got a pretty solid one and if you took my advice and asked someone you trust to look into it, I think that person would tell you what I've told you. If I have been disruptive, that will be shown or not shown in specific diffs.
I've also repeatedly asked you to make public the message you sent to Versageek. This is why: Normally, the responsibility for the bad block would rest entirely on the shoulders of the admin who did it. This case is different in that both you and Versageek are checkusers and this block depended on the use of checkuser and the judgment related to that. You aren't just some editor who asked for help, you're a senior checkuser asking for help -- therefore, Versageek may well have relied on your judgment as a CU, despite your involvement. Lar, you are known for the mildness of your language, which easily gives the impression of a calm temperament. If I were a checkuser like Versageek and was given a request from a senior CU who I normally respected, and one who gives the impression of a calm temperament, I'd let down my guard a bit too and might well be a bit imprudent in my reaction. He probably credited your complaint far more than he would just about anyone else; he says he never consulted with another checkuser -- and I can see why: he already had a senior checkuser telling him "disruption" took place. As a senior checkuser you have a responsibility to be careful in what you say when you're asking other checkusers to check out a sock. I already know your thinking wasn't careful; now I want to see how careful your communicating was. Your justification for the sock, when we remove all the minor points, basically boils down to whether or not I was disruptive. That happens to be Versageek's only justification for the sock. That's why I came to your talk page to ask you about this and got the confirmation I expected.
Versageek has admitted that contacting me and discussing the matter would have been a better option than blocking me. (My only other major difference with him is that he hasn't re-evaluated whether or not I was disruptive. Just as with you and me, he and I can only discuss this accusation of disruption with any hope of coming to a resolution if we talk specifics.) Versageek still has primary responsibility for the block, but neither I nor anybody else can figure out how much blame for this bad decision is shared by you until you make your message public. You and he were elected as checkusers. You owe it to every editor to be open about this communication. Did you misapply WP:SOCK in that message the way you've misapplied it in this thread? Was the tone derogatory to me in ways you normally aren't on-wiki? Did it reflect an arrogant attitude? Did you misuse your position as checkuser in this private communication in some other way? It's worth knowing when a bad block has happened.
My arguments at DRV or AfD did not depend on people needing to know my edit history as Noroton, and when it became known, not even Shankbone himself thought my motives were wrong. Once the initial shock passed (and people stopped thinking I must have been actively deceptive and badly motivated) even my old antagonist Wikidemon acted like a gentleman and withdrew his worst initial comments. When you argue by directly citing policy and the facts and try to show the reasonable nature of your opinion, it's the opposite of trying to influence people by some show of personal purity or authority. People could have thought I was a jerk and still appreciated my arguments. And after the Sock Drama, it appears not one vote was affected and support for Overturn has been running 4:1 in the more recent !votes. What's that tell you about how important my so-called "deception" was? (A passive "deception" necessarily part of WP:CLEANSTART if clean-start is supposed to mean anything at all.)
Lar, I haven't quibbled and I'm not "rules mongering". De minimus technical violations done by a user who was clearly not trying to harm the encyclopedia and in fact not harming it can be distinguished pretty well from clearly abusive socking. Participatin in that AfD and DRV were not even in a gray area under the language of WP:SOCK as late as the date of the block. Immediate, no-warning blocks are for clear abuse. Versageek admits it; why can't you? Although you've read what I've written about this, you ignore the fact that I've admitted and apologized for every one of those violations.
Whether or not you admit it, it's pretty obvious that it was a bad block. If I need to go to Arbcom to counteract this smear on me, I will. What I won't do is slink away and let this be a mark on my block record or let this episode go on the record for every future Wikidemon or Tarc or other nasty editor to say in some unrelated thread in the future, "Oh, weren't you the guy blocked for socking? And weren't you disruptive and blocked for it?" As if I socked abusively. I'm going to get either you and Versageek or some higher authority to say I did not sock abusively (in anything but the most technical, trivial sense) and I did not act so disruptively as to deserve a block. That needs to be stated authoritatively. Then I can go back to editing 1842 in poetry and the like and occasionally participating in AfDs and policy discussions without worrying that your smear will follow me. Quit obfuscating: I'm going to nail down the facts one way or the other. Versageek has actually impressed me by admitting one area where he was wrong, and if he admits the other error (thinking I was disruptive), I can chalk it up to a mistake rather than an exhibition of incredibly poor judgment. I'd prefer to do the same with you, but I've got to protect myself from future smearing connected to this and you're not letting me. JohnWBarber (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your spin is breathtaking in its scope. I'm not going to be drawn into it though. My considered judgment of your contributions in those discussion, taken as a whole, is that you were being disruptive. You can take that or leave it but it remains my judgment. My considered judgment of the use of this sock, taken as a whole, was that it was deceptive. Really, there's not more to say here. ++Lar: t/c 17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bose wave systems

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bose wave systems, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose wave systems (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bose Products Merge

[edit]

Thanks for your input into the AfD for Bose stereo speakers et. al. As you may have seen, the result was No Consensus. I have started a discussion to find consensus on merging all of these articles together. Feel free to contribute your opinions here. Thanks! SnottyWong talk 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Lar

[edit]

Hope you're good :-) - We've spoken about this sort of thing previously, so I thought I'd point it out to you. Thas'all :-) (there's a bit of background discussion on this wiki about this one too - let me know if you'd like to know any more....) Privatemusings (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate a pointer to the en:wp discussion if you know of it. Or add it there? ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Largely here (already linked to from commons), it was pointed out to me here. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
commented on the RfD, thanks for the pointer. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abraham Gesner Photo.gif

[edit]

Hi Lar, asking you a small favour if I may. This image was moved to commons from en.wiki in 2007, and subsequently deleted here. Now it is in danger of being deleted for lacking source at Commons... Could you check if the original file at en: had any information that got lost during transfer, and if so - either update the info on the Commonsfile or temporalily restore the local version here so that I may copy relevant info. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Sorry I missed this. There isn't much on the en:wp version, the uploader (Geoff NoNick on 18 Jan 2007) merely said
The creator of this image of Abraham Gesner died over 100 years ago so it is in the public domain.
and used {{PD-art}} for the license. Sorry, that doesn't seem like much help. I can undelete the whole thing for you though, just LMK. ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to undelete then, thanks for your help anyway :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Sarek's Recall

[edit]

Yeah, totally should have closed that earlier. Been busy with school. Thanks for poking me, though! Master of Puppets 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

[edit]

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

[edit]

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy11 and his puppets

[edit]

Hey man, I have been dealing with a persistent puppeteer during the last few days. After I uncovered the "good hand/bad hand" modus operandi, the puppeteer admitted being the owner of several puppets by himself. However, just today he continued the mass creation of more puppets, not even trying to hide their identity. Should we run a checkuser to block all the ones that are lurking undiscovered? - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly. The diff you give isn't much to go on, do you have more such as the creation of additional accounts, or statements by the user? Have you considered a formal request at WP:SPI ? ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, somewhere around the insults in his response, the user admits being the owner of a few more accounts. Then, yesterday this account began editing the exact same articles, following the exact same pattern and using the same manner of edit summary. The fact that the pattern is obvious is the reason that I have not filed a SPI report yet, but my biggest concern are sleeper accounts. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes, see it now. I found one more sock in there, DickTracy100 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). However in my opinion

Citourspr (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
is  Unlikely to be related to
Mercy11 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

so I am not sure I support the block at this time. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for the help. Its kind of odd that an account appeared a day after the initial block and edited Mercy's articles, but I have unblocked and will see how it behaves for the time being. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed an Arb case

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#JohnWBarber Versageek Lar -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very minor problem with Arabian horse

[edit]

Can you watchlist Talk:Arabian horse? We have a little newbie with an attitude over there. May go away soon, may stay to cause trouble. Just want a neutral eye over there because my seasonal affective disorder is kicking in and my patience is heading toward zero...(grin) Montanabw(talk) 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but my watchlist is too big to be much use. I've not spotted anything too far off the mark. ++Lar: t/c 12:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been a drive-by. Montanabw(talk) 04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination of Chicago Sky Ride as transporter bridge

[edit]

Since you were the original author of Sky Ride, I would especially invite your comments to my proposals at Talk:Sky_Ride#RfC: Removal of transporter bridge classification and Talk:Transporter_bridge#RfC: Elimination of Sky Ride as a transporter bridge. (I think there's a template for this kind of individual invitation, but I can't find it. Sorry about that.) Best regards.TransporterMan (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commented at Talk:Sky_Ride#RfC: Removal of transporter bridge classification, thanks for letting me know. Classification is always an interesting question. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TransporterMan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you for the comments.TransporterMan (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Commented further there. BTW, David B. Steinman was a boyhood hero of mine perhaps because I grew up 35 miles south of the Big Mac. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sky Ride Talk Page - Smoking Gun. Mea culpa and my apologies for putting you through the trouble. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I now think that clarification is a good one, I'd leave it. But in any case, no worries, the article's better now than it was thanks to the work done on it due to this attention paid it. ++Lar: t/c 18:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

[edit]

Can I have my rollback back? I would have used it on Special:Contributions/70.121.37.111 if I had it. Thank you. --NE2 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It looks like The_ed17 took it away about a month ago, citing an edit they found problematic. You were subsequently blocked and apparently banned from ArbCom related pages, although I don't know the full details. I'm not sure I have the context to make an informed judgment about your request, and certainly not all by myself. I suggest you ask on the WP:RFR page so a larger consensus can be gathered. Does that seem reasonable? I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you because the removal was related to the reporting mark discussion you were later involved in. The ArbCom thing was completely unrelated, and should have no bearing on rollback, since I didn't do any reverting there (in fact I was blocked/banned because I wouldn't revert my own edits :)). --NE2 16:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was? Well let me look at it some more. ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to leave you hanging but I've not had time to examine this closely enough to be comfortable granting it. (I tend not to grant it much) I won't object if someone else chooses to. My apologies for any inconvenience caused. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar on ArbCom?

[edit]

Since there's a shortage of candidates this year and you're more than qualified for the job per my criteria I was wondering if I could convince you to run so I can support you? I'm quite certain your candidacy would attract a substantial amount of support. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am flattered, but I don't think so. Last year I wrote why I chose not to run for arbcom this year and a fair bit has changed, and for the better. I really appreciate the thought though. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't; I'd feel obliged to vote against you for your own good. Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. I should call your bluff. ++Lar: t/c 01:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should do this, Lar. From what I've seen of you here, you're very solid, and we could use more of those on the arbcom. UA 01:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the compliment, really I do, but it's a very big commitment and I have a lot on my plate already... go convince Mackenson to run instead :) ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mackenson I don't know. You, I do. I can understand about your having a lot on your plate, though. I only hope you reconsider -- you'd be good, even if only as a 1/2 or 2/3-time arb -- before nominations close. UA 02:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks no, I'm liking it just fine on the outside. Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two times in the barrel was enough? ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your arb question

[edit]

You asked: "What is the appropriate role of outside criticism: a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?"

Wikipedia contributors obviously have no control whatsoever about whether and how outsiders criticize Wikipedia, and what Wikipedians think of outside criticism by non-Wikipedians of course matters exactly squat. I wonder if you really meant to ask to what extent participating in outside criticism is compatible with being an active WP contributor, or something like that. If so, maybe you could modify your question for clarity. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're partly correct. While it is true that Wikipedia, or individual Wikipedians, cannot have direct control over what folk do elsewhere, there is a possibility of influence in behavior. That can have a very strong effect in some cases. I ask the question (as I did last year) as a way to judge viewpoints, and it seems to be working fairly well. ++Lar: t/c 02:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked over some of the answers that question received from successful candidates in 2008, and most either gave about the same answer I did, or else used the alternate interpretation I mentioned and answered that instead. None that I examined mentioned the possibility of influencing outsiders. Anyway, whether it's possible to influence a critic has nothing at all to do with whether an outsider's criticism is acceptable. Of course it better be acceptable, in the sense that we better understand that we can't prevent it. So, I think the question would receive more useful answers if it were written differently.

Some other of your questions basically ask "what would you do about X or Y if you were king of Wikipedia". Those questions might be interesting to ask in an anonymous survey, but can only get pandering answers in the context of an arb election. We all have views or desires about one thing or another that go completely against WP practice, so we just live with the idea of editing in an imperfect world. While a non-politico or an anonymous respondent might be willing to express some of those views, an arb candidate hoping to actually get elected would probably keep them private. (An extreme example: there is a guy (not me) who makes a reasoned argument that Wikipedia should solve its BLP problems by deleting literally all of its BLP's and forbidding the creation of new ones). So I think the answers you received probably didn't reveal as much as you might have hoped. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'm not trying to be unconstructively critical. I thought the actual content of your questions was quite interesting and I spent a fair amount of time thinking about how I'd answer them myself. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The same answer I did"? Sorry, you have the advantage of me, sir, I do not know who you are. Which candidate were you? As to pandering, there certainly is such a risk but I think our voters are fairly good at spotting same. Many candidates spoke frankly rather than giving the answers they may have expected I wanted to hear. ++Lar: t/c 12:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant they said more or less the same thing in their answers that I wrote at the top of this thread. I did notice that unlike RFA, there doesn't seem to be any requirement in "criteria for running" that arb candidates have accounts. But I thought the better of running. ;-) 69.228.171.150 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to reduce volume/number of questions

[edit]

Dear Lar, you appear to be asking separate 29 questions, taking 1460 words in display mode. Given that users were restricted to one question in the general questions, can you explain why you are not flouting the spirit of the distinction between general and individual questions. There are already 13 candidates; given a likely 20 candidates and a combined text/responses total of possibly 4000 words for each candidate, presuming a serious attempt is made to respond, your questions alone could add 80,000 words for voters to read.

Please consider reducing the text of your questions by 80–90% for the sake of both voters and candidates. Tony (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are important questions, just as they were last year. I don't think it would be fair to the candidates who have already answered these, in some cases in considerable depth and with considerable thought, to make it easier for candidates who come later. ArbCom is an important part of en:wp, and we need thoughtful and articulate candidates. I suggest you review last year's questions and answers, as well as the number of voters who cited my questions last year as part of their decision making process. Further, my questions last year, and the individual answers by candidates, were analyzed in detail, and I don't think any other set of questions/answers got that level of scrutiny or publicity. Given those factors I don't think your request is at all reasonable. Thanks for sharing your concern, though. ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's discussed at the bottom of the same page, too. Tony (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your statement lacks a clear antecedent... what's discussed at the bottom of which page? I don't see any discussion of question length at the bottom of the WR page I referenced (the most recent possible antecedent for your reply), the last post is by Kato, analyzing John Vandenberg's replies. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, you mean Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Gigantic_.22individual.22_questions_directed_at_every_candidate... a page not directly cited in this thread. ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been quoted...

[edit]

...in your steward role by Ottava Rima [6]. I am curious whether you consider the quotation accurate. (If you are puzzled by this question, see [7] for background.) Hans Adler 16:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the most accurate representation of what was going on there. I wasn't acting as a Steward, merely a concerned editor. I was treading gently because my previous attempts to give Ottava guidance or advice or admonishment went poorly. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Ottava was trying to use your authority as a steward during an ongoing Arbcom case, as a kind of absolution from his attack on John Kenney, I think this diff should be introduced into the case as part of Abecedare's list (see 2nd link above). It's particularly relevant since the incident happened well after Abecedare started the list. It appears to show that Ottava is acting in good faith and has no control over this inappropriate behaviour. If you have no strong objections, I will propose this to Abecedare. Hans Adler 18:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objections. I've chosen not to participate directly but I do think I was misquoted there and you're welcome to introduce that. ++Lar: t/c 04:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Best of luck in the discussion itself, I think you're right about the need for there to be more than just a Dab at Persian Empire." Was what you said at 20:35, 24 August 2009. If that is not the same as "the page shouldn't be removed", then I apologize. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The big issue is that your phrasing "a Steward handling it" is completely inappropriate as it was not in any way a Steward matter. You know, if you would take input better, perhaps you wouldn't be in such hot water right now. I was on your page primarily to point out how inappropriate your remarks to John Kenney were. NOT primarily to get involved in the Persian Empire matter, that was a remark in passing. The cite in Abecedare's evidence is one of 20 (with many more available) that show how you twist or misuse what others say while apparently wilfully ignoring what they actually do mean. You need to stop that. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, stewards handle "outing" problems. Are you an Oversighter independently? I have not checked. If that is a passing mention, you still mentioned it. I don't really see how I misquoted you. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update - [8] No, you are not an Oversighter. So, I stand by my describing you as a Steward, who are used to handle oversight matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I hope I am misreading this. It sounds as if you really meant to say that Lar okayed your attack against John Kenney, according to the principle: It wasn't oversighted and I wasn't blocked, so everything was correct. Hans Adler 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think the problem is that you mentioned Lar's support in a completely inappropriate context:
  • Your harassment of John Kenney was of a quality that is never excusable, whether you were right in the underlying conflict or not. If you have killed your brother in a dispute over a bottle of wine you are not supposed to argue that it was really yours when you find yourself in court.
  • The position of a steward has nothing whatsoever to do with a content decision about whether or not there should be an article or a disambiguation page under Persian Empire.
  • Therefore, if you mention that the steward agreed with you over the content decision ("the policeman agreed that the wine was actually mine") in this particular section it looks like an attempt to imply something like the following: Even a steward who noticed the harassment felt it wasn't so bad after all, as proved by the fact that he agreed with you about an unrelated question. Hans Adler 19:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harassment is posting personal information. At no time did I post it. He made a claim about his education and I made a jock that his school did not teach history properly if he was going to base his education as a reason for why his statements were correct. I also reverted it before anyone even noticed. Please use definitions as appropriate. Could it be construed as a personal attack? Sure. Harassment or outing? No. As a personal attack, it was redacted by myself as appropriate to NPA. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a threat to harass by making undesired personal contact. It may not have been intended as a serious threat, but it was nevertheless a threat to harass. If I hadn't been walking on eggshells because I tire of how much drama is engendered in talking to you, I would have spoken more directly: It was an inappropriate thing to post. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal? No. Finding out if his school actually teaches history in the manner he suggests? Yes. And Lar, I redacted it long before you pointed out it was inappropriate. But back to the point - since you see it as potentially harassing, do you deny that you then filled in your role as Steward as you have in every single experience we've had together, especially since Stewards are tasked with oversighting matters and dealing with outings (especially stating such at the #wikimedia-stewards channel) ? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Threatening to call someone's place of employment is a threat of harassment by making undesired personal contact. Regardless of how you slice it. As for the rest, "filled in your role as Steward" doesn't parse for me. Please restate the question. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, Hans, at no time did I say that a steward said my actions were acceptable, and the parenthetical statement denotes that there is no connection between the two. However, Lar did make the comments together, which was pointed out. Your comparison to murder is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch, burn. You have murdered my reputation with your sharp tongue. Touche, sir, touche. But anyway, you know, you still haven't asked me to actually change any of the wording, which is a strange thing. I do redact and fix things per suggestions. Odd how rarely people actually bother. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Hans Adler's suggestion I have added this to my Evidence (it's #20 on the list). Can you please review it, and let me know if anything needs to be expanded or changed ? It wouldn't do for me to misrepresent or miscite you as an "authority", while presenting evidence that Ottava does so. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have added a follow-up based on the above exchange. It gets more surreal by the minute. Abecedare (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the most surreal convo here ever, if that helps... Yet anyway. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can make it more surreal by admitting that I would still vote to reconfirm Lar as a Steward if it ever came up, even though I find his interactions with me to be unpleasant. :) He isn't actually a bad fellow, especially with practical use of the ops (except for the occasional commons dust up, but they are always rather random). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your replies on User talk:John Vandenberg

[edit]

Thanks. You may have noticed that I was rather irritated about you last time around. This does a lot to forget that feeling again. Fram (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I wasn't very pleased with you either. I'm hopeful that you will consider trying to get to know Jack a bit better so you see where he's coming from. He really means well, I am convinced of it. Best. ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought that's how you felt as well :-) On the other issue, let's agree to disagree for the time being. Fram (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RCA vandalism

[edit]

The RCA article is being persistently vandalized. Can you check out the article and take any actions you deem necessary? Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same silly edit over and over. Semi'ed for a week. That should do I think. ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The vandalism has resumed after the semi-protection was lifted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Let's try 2 weeks semi this time instead of 1, can you toss the template back on there? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did the template too, so all set I think. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-class

[edit]

Hi, we were idly wondering (on Template talk:Class mask) what the original rationale behind this class was. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as I can't find any relevant discussion? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I had anything to do with that. Do you know why you think I did? And where is it being discussed in there, I didn't spot it. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 23:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because you created Template:Merge-Class. It's near the bottom of that page, but don't worry - you can reply here if you like! Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I still don't see which topic on Class mask this is being discussed in, it would be nice to find it. No worries though. Second, I'm sorry, that creation was in 2006. I'm afraid I have no idea why it was created any more. (it may have been Kingboyk telling me to do it, or some other reason, rather than my own idea).... It does seem to be used for things, consider for example Talk:Cry_of_the_Spirit ... an album article that got merged to the band article. Perhaps the album was in the 1.0 list or something and just leaving a redirect behind was not considered appropriate? Sorry I'm not more help. I have no strong opinion about whether it should be sunsetted or not, and certainly no objection if it is. ++Lar: t/c 23:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Lar left MBK004 out by mistake

[edit]
Hello, Lar. You have new messages at User talk:Lar/ACE2009.
Message added 20:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I believe that you have forgotten about my candidacy? -MBK004 20:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Answered there. ++Lar: t/c 21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava doesn't like what Lar said about the WQA

[edit]

Your comments here are far too aggressive and cross the line on multiple accounts. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I'm sure I'll give it far more careful consideration than you typically give feedback you receive. ++Lar: t/c 19:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think nastiness and sarcasm really helps your case? You already showed that you had contempt for an honest WQA seeking to resolve peaceful claims of hate. Now you are going about making these comments. What do you hope to gain from this? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your characterization of events around that WQA. Nor do most others. That's not nasty, nor is it sarcastic. It just is. Further, I give what you say far more careful consideration than you give what others say. That's one of the key points coming out in your arbitration, you fail to listen carefully, or internalize what you're being told, and you have little or no ability to admit you erred about anything substantive. That's not nasty, nor is it sarcastic either. It just is.
I have no interest in arguing with you about this at yet another venue. I've stayed out of your RfAr for that very reason, lack of interest. The community will sort you soon enough. So, again, thanks for your input. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava: Per User:Lar/Eeyore Policy I refactored your heading to something descriptive of the topic, as is my wont, as I felt your heading wasn't descriptive enough. Durova saw fit to meddle with that, so I reverted her here. However, if you would like to change the heading to something else, please feel free to do so, as long as it is more descriptive than "Your comments". ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALK - "# Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user. # Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history." Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava: Please change the topic to one that in your view meets that guideline. In my view it already does meet the guideline, but go ahead anyway. As I already invited you to do. However "your comments" (which I note, addresses me) is unsatisfactory as it is not descriptive enough of the topic. If you do not change it to something else I will consider this submatter closed, as by not changing it you will have signified your acceptance. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, by not changing, I am merely unsatisfied at your actions and wish to have nothing further to do with them. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsatisfied by many of your actions, come to think of it. Oh well, I'll just have to get over it somehow. As a reminder, I reviewed that policy page and I still find there's nothing wrong with the current heading used on a user talk page. Best. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by your comment. Could you please link to such actions that have taken place in areas that you have been involved in? From my recollection, I have kept quite a far distance from areas you are involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to be "involved" to be unsatisfied by an action of yours. You want a link to some? Here you go: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions/Evidence ... your own "evidence" is highly unsatisfactory, as it's for the most part patently false or misconstrued, and the links given by everyone else are about your unsatisfactory actions. Now, go find someone else to bother. The community will sort you out soon enough, there's no need for this conversation. Best. ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused how you can consider my evidence false or misconstrued. There is no subjectivity put to it, and it had many, many people looking over it and helping me put it in the most neutral language. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your confusion will be all cleared up by the end of the case. Or not, but no matter. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review

[edit]

Hi Lar. Looking over the history of this page, I am a bit baffled. Can you explain what happened here, and what "active discussion" you refer to in your edit summary? Thank you, Tiptoety talk 18:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Down a page at ../mentors page and ../mentors talk page which are subpages of the pages I restored. It's weird to see a redlink in the breadcrumb trail. Hope that helps? ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If those intermediate pages do not exist, which they didn't until I smiled on them, the breadcrumbs are not rendered; MediaWiki somewhere ;) Jack Merridew 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and the reason the page is blank and not transcluded on the /motions subpage is because ArbCom is waiting for the mentors to make a statement / final decisions? Tiptoety talk 18:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe FloNight, or some arb, will be posting a motion/motions there soon. The subpages are done. They were for mentors and I; +talkers. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC) (on handphone; 3:00am;)[reply]
Okie Dokie. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 19:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_60&oldid=1143388277"